Opinion editor's note: Star Tribune Opinion publishes letters from readers online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

This letter is in reply to the front-page article "New tool tracks value of a degree" (Oct. 19). There appear to be two underlying assumptions made by the reporter, both of which I respectfully disagree with.

First is the premise that college is solely meant to be preparation for a career. In my estimation, that is actually a secondary consideration. First and foremost, college teaches young people how to think. The problem with the average 18- to 20-year-old student is that his or her brain is an island of gray matter awash in a sea of hormones. In their freshman and sophomore years at the academy, these folks are taught how to separate fact from fiction, how to construct a sound and valid argument, how to analyze the arguments of others and how to express themselves coherently. As I see it, college is boot camp for the mind and just like new recruits in the Army or Navy, the experience gives one discipline, and it gives one rigor (although hopefully not rigor mortis, as the thinking of some has become so ossified that they no longer realize that there are legitimate viewpoints other than their own).

Then there is the suggestion that the value of a college degree resides only in the return on investment of a particular field of study. I've read plenty of stories of highly educated and highly paid people who are or were miserable in their jobs. One's life choice should be a calling, something that the individual feels deep down in their heart of hearts that this is how they want to spend their time and effort. If the only goal in life is to be able to sit on a mountain of cash, then our country becomes a nation of Philistines. Ideally, we become doctors to heal the body, psychiatrists to heal the mind, and men and women of the cloth to heal the soul. And above all, a study of art, literature, philosophy, music and the other finer things in life allows us to step outside of ourselves and come to realize that we are not merely solitary beings, but brothers and sisters in the Family of Man.

Mike Bemis, Oakdale

Former Mayor R.T. Rybak's opinion piece urging voters not to choose sides in the current Minneapolis politics debate hearkens back to another former Minneapolis mayor, Hubert Humphrey ("Voters should beware 'bloc' politics, not new voices," Opinion Exchange, Oct. 18). Humphrey and Orville Freeman engaged in the very politics Rybak bemoaned when they organized to purge the socialists from DFL leadership in the mid-1940s. Under this new direction, the DFL began defeating Republicans more regularly, flipping both Minnesota Senate seats between 1948 and 1958.

One needs to look no further than the Twin Cities Democratic Socialists of America's Oct. 9 statement calling for the end of Israel to understand that the differences between "blocs" in Minneapolis are substantive. The comfortable, why-can't-everyone-just-get-along politics that Rybak wants only work if all sides share some common values.

Republicans are grappling with what to do about members of their party who do not accept the results of a fair election. Purging them from leadership positions requires other Republicans to work together and take an uncompromising position against lying.

Not all political battles are symmetrical. Bold leadership, and yes, even some divisiveness, are sometimes necessary in the pursuit of a better world.

Jacob Hill, Minneapolis

•••

Hamas went into Israel in order to kill innocent civilians. That is murder. It is what terrorists do. Israel has to go into Gaza in order to try to kill terrorists to prevent future attacks on their people. That is what any country would do in response to a terrorist attack, and it is completely justified. Unfortunately, innocent people will die because Hamas terrorists live among civilians.

There is no equivalence between Hamas intentionally murdering innocent Israelis and the accidental loss of innocent Palestinian lives as Israel seeks to eliminate the terrorists. That is why most politicians have not condemned Israel for the loss of Palestinian lives. Hamas is responsible not only for the loss of innocent Israeli lives but also for the innocent Palestinians who are being killed as Israel wages a justified war on Hamas.

James Brandt, New Brighton

Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett visited the University of Minnesota to discuss some of her views on life and the legal system ("A justice mostly unchallenged," Oct. 17). A handful of protesters interrupted her talk with shouts and chants. In the democratic process, all sides deserve a hearing. We too often see extremists attempt to shout down people with different views. It seems like such protesters do not want to hear, nor want others to hear, opposing views. One would think they cannot easily support their position before alternative ideas, so they have to silence those alternatives.

Fortunately, the protesters were removed and the talk continued. This is the democratic process, to hear out different ideas and blend them into a compromise. People have a constitutional right to protest, but not to keep others from saying their side of things. Barrett has gone farther in life than most of us have, and has much experience to pass on. The Star Tribune article featured a quote from Barrett that we must heed to continue the democratic process. "Take advantage of all your opportunities to learn about lots of things and to challenge yourselves. Expose yourself to ideas you might not think you agree with." In other words: learn, and listen.

•••

In "A justice mostly unchallenged," Barrett was quoted at the University of Minnesota saying that the justices are holding themselves to "the highest ethical standards possible." Does she consider the actions of Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito accepting unreported lavish gifts from billionaire benefactors likely seeking to gain their favor "the highest ethical standards possible"? Also, Barrett was one of the three Trump appointees to the court who stated during their confirmation hearings that Roe v. Wade was settled law, giving the impression that they would not overturn the precedent. Upon confirmation to the court, however, they quickly voted to dismantled the 50 years of protection Roe v. Wade had given to women. Misrepresenting their intentions during their confirmation hearings is also not in keeping with "the highest ethical standards possible."